Professor’s fellowship terminated for speaking out on global warming in the Wall Street Journal.

Prof. Caleb Rossiter, after 23 years service, has been fired from The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) for ‘Diverging’ on Climate. Progressive
Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’.

It seems like some things in the GW debate, are not debateable, in this case the Professor's remarks through the Wall street Journal were about the
IPCC's claim of rapid temperature change, which the Professor says were simply wrong, and by using the IPCC's own data, which indicates a nearly 20
year temperate pause.

I agree more digging, but by all of us. Any 'whistleblower' [using the term loosely here) is disruptive, but also there is a lot of water already
under the bridge, including the debacle that was the university of East Anglia attempts to do a bit of 'massaging' and they did a bit of threatening
too when they were 'catched'.
But there is more to this underlying, when you consider the WSJ blog was about Africa, a country that should be the most bountiful in the world for
its citizens, yet it is not, by any yardstick. At the very least, his firing after 23 years shows that the IPS has agenda, and probably the IPCC too,
and even one would be signee, to their latest report walked away, pen still in pocket.
If you consider the second link I gave, those people are not particularly out on the idea of GW, in effect they are saying what we are working with is
the pits, and tells us nowt' They don't have a positive on the amount of heavier-than-air CO2 in the air, and that's what they want. There will be
a satellite flying soon that can do that, that's a positive from the space agencies.

Prof. Caleb Rossiter, after 23 years service, has been fired from The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) for ‘Diverging’ on Climate. Progressive
Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’.

It seems like some things in the GW debate, are not debateable, in this case the Professor's remarks through the Wall street Journal were about the
IPCC's claim of rapid temperature change, which the Professor says were simply wrong, and by using the IPCC's own data, which indicates a nearly 20
year temperate pause.

I, too, find this disturbing, but for a different reason. But let me first object to the position put forth that he was a problem child with a
history.

Caleb Rossiter recently quit his job as a ninth-grade algebra teacher at the Friendship Tech Prep public charter school in Southeast Washington
because, he says, his supervisors pressured him to artificially inflate failing grades and ignored his safety concerns by sending two disruptive
students back into his class.

I couldn't find anything else, and if he was a problem child, how did he work for 23 years for the same boss? He was fired immediately after a
column he wrote for The Wall Street Journal appeared, and the reason for his firing was because of the opinions he expressed in his article.
There's no question about that. That's what his bosses said. There's also no question that he was satisfactory for over two decades.

Here's what bothers me. The Left on this issue (look at IPS' website, oh, they're Left all right) will not tolerate one moment of deviation from
the accepted position. True or false doesn't matter, their position is "We know what we want to say. Even if it's false, we'll keep saying it,
we don't care."

Oh, IPS had the right to fire him. They wanted him to say only what he didn't believe, and he slipped up once. One mistake was fatal. They also
have the right to announce to the world that, in the case of climate change, you'll only get the party line, not the truth.

This kind of dictatorial thought police can be spotted in several other issues, but strange to say, the news doesn't report many people being fired
who took the Left position.

This is just totally absurd. The data is very clear that global warming is not happening anywhere near as bad as they would have us believe, if it's
happening at all. We should be worrying more about things such as oil leaks, overfishing, toxic waste dumps, nuclear disasters, hardcore
deforestation. Those are things which represent a TANGIBLE AND OBSERVABLE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW, not some imaginary crap that no one, not even experts,
can agree upon. Global warming is nothing but a distraction from the real critical issues this Earth is facing, we should be paying attention to the
magicians other hand, not the one he is waving around all the time.

In other words, I'd do some more digging because you're only getting one side of the story, and that story is only being carried via
“questionable” sources.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Your post reminded me of a news item I saw a couple of days ago.

The tv presenter
"This politician has disagreed with three different ministers, he seems to be a bit of a trouble maker"

It seems we now live in a world where we are wrong if we don't follow the herd.

This is the same old story with the current administration today. If you can't attack the issues or the science then attack the person, discredit
with innuendo, make cheap shots based on what a blog says. Create a label and do your best to ruin the person.

a reply to: smurfy
The cost of green energy policies might have been justifiable if they had delivered results, but they haven’t. Since the Kyoto treaty on climate
change, global emissions have continued to rise.

Since 1990 they have increased by close to 50 per cent.

China’s increase in emissions has been 25 times greater than the reduction by the EU nations. In so far as meeting its signed on environmental
statements Europe has only done so by exporting industrial capacity (and jobs). Once the environmental impact of imported goods has been added to its
carbon footprint Europe has clearly failed to keep its environmental promises as have all the western nations..

A bottom line from an article I read awhile back that I cannot seem to find now.. I did know Germany who was really big on renewables and invested a
fortune is really scaling back for the projections are not even close to the actual benefits..some where it was said the stock prices of the green
companies had fallen 80% while others had gone bankrupt.

Policies that prevent a clinic from being able to refrigerate medicines or a student in China from being able to read at night will always be destined
to fail. Sorry if not touchy feely enough for some. The west and Europe are destroying their economies and exporting their jobs... and it will get
worse before it gets better.. I know there are those who do not care about people..to many of the knuckle heads etc etc and it is easy for some to
feel that way in the security of a job and food on the table..

By driving out industry from the west (who has the technology to prevent some of the worse pollution the west can make) and send it to places like
India or China which does not have the industrial expertise, pollution controls, or in many cases even care what they do to their environment is right
up there with "man will never fly" as far as a sound plan.. IMO

" Every year environmental groups celebrate a night when institutions in developed countries (including my own university) turn off their lights as a
protest against fossil fuels. They say their goal is to get America and Europe to look from space like Africa: dark, because of minimal energy use.
But that is the opposite of what’s desired by Africans I know. They want Africa at night to look like the developed world, with lights in every
little village and with healthy people, living longer lives, sitting by those lights. Real years added to real lives should trump the minimal impact
that African carbon emissions could have on a theoretical catastrophe.
I’ve spent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of
Iraq. I have headed a group trying to block U.S. arms and training for “friendly” dictators, and I have written books about how U.S. policy in the
developing world is neocolonial.
But I oppose my allies’ well-meaning campaign for “climate justice.” More than 230 organizations, including Africa Action and Oxfam, want
industrialized countries to pay “reparations” to African governments for droughts, rising sea levels and other alleged results of what Ugandan
strongman Yoweri Museveni calls “climate aggression.” And I oppose the campaign even more for trying to deny to Africans the reliable
electricity–and thus the economic development and extended years of life–that fossil fuels can bring.
The left wants to stop industrialization–even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the
Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that “even if the mercury weren’t rising” we should bring “the
developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.” He sees the “climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we
can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”
I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to
2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.
Then, as now, the computer models simply built in the assumption that fossil fuels are the culprit when temperatures rise, even though a similar
warming took place from 1900 to 1940, before fossil fuels could have caused it. The IPCC also claims that the warming, whatever its cause, has
slightly increased the length of droughts, the frequency of floods, the intensity of storms, and the rising of sea levels, projecting that these
impacts will accelerate disastrously. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that the average global temperature today remains unchanged since 2000, and did
not rise one degree as the models predicted.
But it is as an Africanist, rather than a statistician, that I object most strongly to “climate justice.” Where is the justice for Africans when
universities divest from energy companies and thus weaken their ability to explore for resources in Africa? Where is the justice when the U.S.
discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a “global
warming” tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods? Even if the wildest claims about the current impact of fossil fuels on the
environment and the models predicting the future impact all prove true and accurate, Africa should be exempted from global restraints as it seeks to
modernize.
With 15% of the world’s people, Africa produces less than 5% of carbon-dioxide emissions. With 4% of global population, America produces 25% of
these emissions. In other words, each American accounts for 20 times the emissions of each African. We are not rationing our electricity. Why should
Africa, which needs electricity for the sort of income-producing enterprises and infrastructure that help improve life expectancy? The average in
Africa is 59 years–in America it’s 79. Increased access to electricity was crucial in China’s growth, which raised life expectancy to 75 today
from 59 in 1968.
According to the World Bank, 24% of Africans have access to electricity and the typical business loses power for 56 days each year. Faced with
unreliable power, businesses turn to diesel generators, which are three times as expensive as the electricity grid. Diesel also produces black soot, a
respiratory health hazard. By comparison, bringing more-reliable electricity to more Africans would power the cleaning of water in villages, where
much of the population still lives, and replace wood and dung fires as the source of heat and lighting in shacks and huts, removing major sources of
disease and death. In the cities, reliable electricity would encourage businesses to invest and reinvest rather than send their profits abroad.
Mindful of the benefits, the Obama administration’s Power Africa proposal and the World Bank are trying to double African access to electricity. But
they have been hamstrung by the opposition of their political base to fossil fuels–even though off-grid and renewable power from the sun, tides and
wind is still too unreliable, too hard to transmit, and way too expensive for Africa to build and maintain as its primary source of power.
In 2010 the left tried to block a World Bank loan for a new coal-fired plant in South Africa. Fortunately, the loan was approved (with the U.S.
abstaining). The drive to provide electricity for the poor has been perhaps the greatest achievement of South Africa’s post-apartheid
governments.
Standing on the mountainside at night in Cape Town, overlooking the “Coloured” township of Mitchell’s Plain and the African township of
Khayelitsha, you can now see a twinkling blanket of bulbs. How terrible to think that so many people in the West would rather block such success
stories in the name of unproved science. "

Rossiter directs the American Exceptionalism Media Project. He is an adjunct professor at American University and an associate fellow at the Institute
for Policy Studies.

—–Forwarded Message—–
From: John Cavanagh
Sent: May 7, 2014 9:51 PM
To: Caleb Rossiter
Cc: Emira Woods, Joy Zarembka
Subject: Ending IPS Associate Fellowship
Dear Caleb,
We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. As you know, Associate
Fellows at IPS are sponsored by an IPS project director or by the director. In your case, both of us sponsored your Fellowship. Unfortunately, we now
feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly
from ours that a productive working relationship is untenable. The other project directors of IPS feel the same.
I (John) have worked with you on and off for two decades and I admire the project you did on Demilitarization and Democracy through IPS. I also admire
the work you did on Capitol Hill with Rep. Delahunt. Both of us have worked with you in other capacities over the years with strong mutual respect. We
thank you for that work and wish you the best in your future endeavors.
If you would like to meet with us in person, we are available. John will be in Berlin from Thursday afternoon through Monday evening, but could meet
after that. Emira is here over the next week if you’d like to meet sooner.
Best regards,
John and Emira

Heck, one of the ways European nations can "feel good" about reducing their emissions is by doing some carbon sleight of hand with China. China is
happy to take European money to do what they're already going to do anyhow. Europe really doesn't reduce their emissions, they just cook their books
to make it look they have and send a lot of money to China.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.